ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050728

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Jason Kirby	J.E.C. Tiles Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Ken Stafford

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00062187-001	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00062187-002	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00062187-003	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00062187-004	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00062187-005	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00062187-006	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00062187-007	08/03/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00062187-008	08/03/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/07/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st May 2013. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €615.38. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as that of “store assistant”. The Complainant terminated his contract of employment on 12th February 2024.

On 8th March 2024, the Complainant referred the present set of complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he was obliged to terminate his employment following a sustained period of bullying and harassment at the hands of the Respondent. In addition to foregoing, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of various employment rights throughout the currency of his employment. In denying these allegations, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant suffered no bullying in the course of his employment. In addition to the foregoing, they submitted that the Complainant did not exhaust the Respondent’s internal procedures prior to resigning his contract of employment. Finally, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received all statutory payments due and owing to him.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 1sy July 2024. Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing, these submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaints, while the Managing Director of the Respondent, a customer of Respondent and a HR Consultant gave evidence in defense. All evidence was given under oath or affirmation and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

Various preliminary issues as to the complaints were raised by the Respondent in the course of the hearing. Given the nature of these, they will be discussed individually following a summary of the substantive matter.

As the Complainant accepted that he terminated his contract of employment, he accepted that consequent burden of proof imposed by the Act, and gave his evidence first.

Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he was a long-standing employee of the Respondent. At all relevant times, his role was described as that of “store assistant”. The Complainant stated that for the majority of his employment he enjoyed his role and got on well with staff and management alike.

The Complainant stated that his difficulties in this role began with an unfortunate encounter with a customer in August 2021. Following an interaction with this customer, the Complainant stated that this person became abusive and threatening towards him, both in private conversation and later in front of the managing director of the business. Following these interactions, the Complainant repeatedly requested sight of the relevant CCTV footage that would, in the Complainant’s view, demonstrate the accuracy of his version of events. Notwithstanding the Complainant’s repeated requests in this regard, the managing director refused to provide the same. On 10th December 2021, the managing director and customer arrived at the store and proceeded to office area. At this point, the Complainant stated that he believed that all parties present, including his colleagues, listened to covert recording taken by the customer in breach of the Complainant’s data protection rights. After this meeting, the customer left the premises and the manging director addressed the Complainant in front of his colleagues. At this juncture, the managing director stated that the Complainant would have to apologise to the customer or else lose his job. When faced with this ultimatum, the Complainant opted to apologise to the customer. Nonetheless, the Complainant continued to request the relevant CCTV footage, and issued a complaint to the data protection commission in relation to the same.

Approximately six months later, in February 2022, a customer ordered some bathroom supplies from the Complainant. Following this interaction, the Complainant agreed to fit the tiles in a private capacity. When the customer in question refused to pay for the installation provided by the Complainant, he opted to pay for the materials himself and recoup the funds in question from the individual. While the the Respondent was in no way out of pocket, the customer complained to the managing director in respect of the Complainant.

Thereafter, the managing director sought to discuss the matter with the Complainant. At this juncture, the Complainant advised that he was seeking legal advice in relation to the incident and that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter internally. Nonetheless, the manging director stated that an internal investigation would take place in relation to this incident. While the Complainant reiterated his innocence in relation to this incident, he complied with the direction of management in this regard.

In advance of the meeting, the Complainant again explained that he was in discussions with his solicitor regarding the monies owed to him by the customer and that he was not in a position to discuss the same with him or anyone else. The Complainant attended the meeting of 23rd August prepared to engage as fully as his own legal rights would allow. This meeting was chaired by a third party instructed by the Respondent, of whom the Complainant had no prior knowledge of or interaction with. At the outset of the meeting, the Complainant outlined a number of questions he believed were relevant to the meeting, and necessary for the protection of his own rights. At this point, the chair of the meeting became extremely abusive towards the Complainant and began shouting at him and refusing to allow him to answer questions. As the Complainant began to feel unsafe during the meeting, he was obliged to leave the same.

Thereafter, the Complainant was signed off from work for a period of approximatly one year. During this time, the Respondent made no attempt to contact the Complainant or arrange any form of welfare meeting in respect of his wellbeing. On 11th January 2024, given that it was apparent that the Respondent had no interest in dealing with the issues raised by the Complainant, he felt that he had no choice but to resign his employment. In evidence, the Complainant stated that following the incident in August 2021, the managing director was looking for a reason to dismiss him. In this respect, he submitted that the Respondent had used the incident between the Complainant and the customer, which was private work undertaken outside of work as pretence for his dismissal. In this respect, the Complainant submitted that the investigation meeting was not focused on the relevant details but focused solely on the customer’s allegations and entirely unfounded misconduct.

Following the hearing, the Complainant issued a submission regarding the non-payment of his annual leave entitlement on the termination of his employment. He further submitted that the Respondent routinely breached his rights under working time legislation, particularly in relation to breaks. The Complainant further submitted that he did not have sight of his contract of employment until ten days prior to the purported investigation meeting.

Summary of the Respondent’s Case:

At the outset, the Respondent denied that allegations raised by the Complainant on a substantive and legal basis.

Regarding the incident of August 2021, the managing director advised that he received a call of complaint from one of his long-standing customers regarding the Complainant’s conduct. Following receipt of this allegation, the managing director opted to investigate the matter on an informal basis. Some months later, the customer in question attended the Respondent premises and played a recording of the incident in question. In evidence, the managing director stated that this recording supported the customer’s version of events. Nonetheless, given that the Complainant was a long-standing employee, the Respondent opted to finalise the matter on the grounds that the Complainant apologise to the customer. This apology was issued and the managing director believed the matter to be at an end. While it was accepted that the Complainant further requested sight of the CCTV footage, the managing director stated that he did not fulfil this request as he had numerous other issues to attend to at the time, and that he believed the matter to be at an end. In evidence, the managing director advised that the CCTV footage in question would be of limited evidentiary value.

Thereafter, the managing director stated that no further issued arose for a period of six months. However, in February 2022 he was informed of a complaint against the Complainant issued by a customer of the Respondent. Given the nature of these complaints the Respondent elected to convene an investigation meeting, in accordance with their internal procedures in this regard. To ensure the impartiality of this process, the Respondent engaged the services of an independent this party to chair the meeting and issue a report. While a meeting was engaged for this purpose, the managing director was informed that the Complainant left the same prior to any meaningful engagement on his part. Thereafter, the Complainant commenced a period of long-term, certified sick leave, until his resignation on 11th January 2024.

By submission, the Respondent stated that the allegations of bullying and harassment raised by the Complainant were denied on a factual basis. Notwithstanding the same, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not engaged with the relevant internal procedures in this regard and that, as a consequence of the same, his complaint must fail. Regarding the complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was absent from work on certified sick leave and that no breach of the same arose in the circumstances. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant received all outstanding payments on the termination of his employment. Finally, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received a contract of employment and opened the same during the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00062187-008 – Complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts

Regarding the present complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he suffered ongoing adverse treatment at the hands of the Respondent. In this regard, he submitted that following an unpleasant interaction with a customer, the Respondent was waiting for an opportunity to find grounds to terminate his employment. He stated that following the receipt of a customer complaint, the Respondent engaged in an unfair and oppressive investigation procedure that did not respect his natural or contractual rights. In this respect, he stated that he was obliged to resile from the process in order to protect his health. When it became apparent that his employer had no intention of engaging with him in relation to these issues, he felt that he was left with no choice but to terminate his employment and consider himself to be constructively dismissed. In the alternative, the Respondent submitted that the two incidents referred by the Complainant were entirely separate, and were only connected by the Complainant in hindsight. In this respect, they submitted that the earlier incident was resolved by means of the informal procedure and was deemed to be concluded by all parties concerned. Some months later, they became aware of an issue that required investigation. They stated that the Complainant left this process without the same finalising and that he issued his resignation without raising any form of grievance in relation to these incidents.

In this regard, Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, defines constructive dismissal in the following terms,

“…the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”

In Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 ELR, the Supreme Court held that,

“There is implied in a contract of employment a mutual obligation that the employer and the employee will not without reasonable and proper cause conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between them. The term is implied by law and is incident to all contracts of employment unless expressly excluded. The term imposes reciprocal duties on the employer and the employee.”

In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp (1978) IRL 332 the Court stated that,

‘If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer’s conduct.”

In the matter of A Former Employee -v- A Building Supply Company ADJ-00022607, the test to be applied was summarised as follows,

“…the correct approach to be taken by an Adjudicator in considering whether there has been a constructive dismissal is: whether there has been a repudiatory breach by the employer, or, if there has not been a repudiatory breach whether the employer engaged in conduct which made it reasonable for the employee to terminate his contract.”

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has submitted that Respondent engaged in conduct that made it reasonable for him to terminate his contract. In this respect the Complainant submitted that the Respondent engaged in a flawed and unwarranted investigation procedure, designed to find grounds to terminate his employment. In this respect, it should be noted that some degree of agreement exists as to matter under investigation. In this regard, it is accepted that the Complainant provided private work for a customer of the Respondent that he met through the business of the Respondent. Thereafter, this customer complained to the Manging Director as to the oppressive manner by which the Complainant sought to recover payment for this work completed. This allegation, which was denied by the Complainant, was something the Respondent was clearly entitled to investigate and they cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in seeking convening an investigatory meeting in this regard. In addition to the same, the appointment of an independent third party to conduct such an investigation cannot be said to be an unreasonable or oppressive development in this regard.

Thereafter, the Complainant submitted that the conduct of the meeting itself was such that he could no longer engage with the same, and following a brief meeting in this respect, he commenced a length period of certified sick leave. In evidence, the Complainant stated that the meeting was unnecessarily aggressive and that the Chair of the meeting acting in an oppressive manner. In evidence the HR representative in question denied these allegations, stating that he had lengthy experience in these matters and would not act in a manner attributed to him by the Complainant.

Regarding such a conflict of evidence, the appropriate venue for the investigation of the same is by way of internal grievance. In this regard, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to engage with these procedures, and while the Complainant’s allegations were denied on a substantive basis, they submitted that the complaint should fail on these grounds.

To succeed in a complaint of constructive dismissal, it is incumbent on a Complainant to demonstrate their engagement with the Respondent’s internal procedures. In the matter of Beatty v Bayside Supermarkets UD 142/1987 the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that,

“…it is reasonable to expect that the procedures laid down in such agreements be substantially followed in appropriate cases by employer and employee as the case may be, this is the view expressed and followed by the Tribunal in Conway v Ulster Bank Limited UD 474/1981. In this case the Tribunal considers that the procedure was not followed by the claimant and that it was unreasonable of him not to do so. Accordingly, we consider that applying the test of reasonableness to the claimant’s resignation he was not constructively dismissed”.

In the matter of Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, (UD720/2006), the Complainant’s role was changed by the employer in a manner which was “not in keeping with the contract of employment”. While the Complainant in this matter initiated the company’s internal grievance procedures, he resigned without lodging a final appeal. In this instance the Tribunal found that,

“…the claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case”

And,

“…in constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”.

Regarding this point, the Complainant stated that he was absent from work on stress related sick leave for an extended period of time. He submitted that the Respondent made no attempt to rectify the issues at hand and simply allowed matters to proceed until he was obliged to resign. In this respect it is noted that following the aborted investigation meeting, the Complainant’s partner corresponded with the Respondent setting out the Complainant’s allegations regarding the conduct of the investigation meeting, stating that the Complainant had suffered a great deal of stress as a result of the same and requesting that all further queries are addressed through her. By response, the Respondent set out their intention to complete the investigation process once the Complainant is deemed well enough to participate. This correspondence goes on to state that,

“You should be aware that I have put in pace ad robust grievance procedure for employees. Jason is entitled to use this if he feels it is relevant.”

Some five months later, on 11th January 2024, the Complainant issued notice of his resignation, which was duly accepted and processed by the Respondent. Having considered the foregoing factual matrix, it is evident that the Complainant did not engage with the Respondent’s internal grievance procedures prior to resigning his employment. While the Complainant submitted that he was not aware of the content and form of the same, the Respondent’s correspondence of 24th August 2022 expressly invites the Complainant to raise such a grievance and stated that the same would be investigated independently of the matter under investigation. It is further note that the Complainant’s letter of resignation is silent as to any of the matters discussed above and does not contain any rationale for the termination of his employment. In consideration of the authorities cited above, I find that the Complainant’s failure to engage with these procedures is fatal to the his application, and I find that he was not unfairly dismissed within the definition of the Act.

CA-00062187-001 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

Regarding this complaint, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive his contractual terms until 13th August 2022, almost ten years following his commencement date. He stated that these terms outline that he would work 39 hours per week for an agreed salary. In evidence, he stated that he actually worked 39.5 hours each week, resulting in an unpaid half hour of work each day. Over the course of his employment, the Complainant calculated the value of these unpaid wages at €6646.66. By response, the Respondent denied this allegation on a substantive basis, but submitted as a preliminary issue that the matter was statute barred for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

In this regard, Section 6(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that,

“…an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

Thereafter, section 6(8) provides that,

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

In the matter of Health Service Executive -v- McDermott 2014 [IEHC} 331, Hogan J. stated that,

“…the words “contravention to which the complaint relates” which are critical. It may be accepted that every distinct and separate breach of the 1991 Act amounts to a “contravention” of that Act. If, for example, an employee is paid monthly and the employer makes unlawful deduction X in respect of salary for every month in a two year period it might be said in the abstract that there have been 24 separate “contraventions” of the 1991 Act during that period”

And,

“For the purposes of this limitation period, everything turns, accordingly, on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee. If, for example, the employer has been unlawfully making deductions for a three year period, then provided that the complaint which has been presented relates to a period of six months beginning “on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”, the complaint will nonetheless be in time.

It follows, therefore, that if an employer has been making deduction X from the monthly salary of the employee since January 2010, a complaint which relates to deductions made from January, 2014 onwards and which is presented to the Rights Commissioner in June, 2014 will still be in time for the purposes of s. 6(4). If, on the other hand, the complaint were to have been framed in a different manner, such that it related to the period from January, 2010 onwards, it would then have been out of time.”

In the matter of Elsatrans Limited -v- Joseph Tom Murray, PWD 1917, the Labour Court found that when part of a complaint in relation to the non-payment of wages is referred outside of the relevant time-limits, this serves to render the entirety of the complaint out of time.

Having regard to the instant case, it is apparent that the Complainant has framed the present complaint to run for a period of a number of years prior to the referral of the same. In this regard, the second scenario envisioned by Hogan J above is applicable and it is apparent that the complaint, as framed, is out of time for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

CA-00062187-002 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

Regarding this referral, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive a daily rest period. As this complaint was not pursed by the Complainant at the hearing, I find that the same is not well-founded.

CA-00062187-003 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

Regarding this referral, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive breaks in accordance with the Act throughout his employment. In evidence, the Complainant stated that he would frequently work alone in the premises and would be obliged to serve any customer, or answer the phone, during the time designated for his lunch break.

In circumstances whereby the complaint form was referred on 8th March 2024, the cognisable period for the purposes of the present complaint is 8th September 2023 to the date of referral. As it is common case that the Complainant was absent for the entirety of this period, no breach of the Act occurred during the cognisable period. As a consequence of the same, I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00062187-004 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

Regarding this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he did not receive correct payment for outstanding annual leave on the termination of his employment.

Following an enquiry from the Adjudicator, the parties undertook to exchange submissions in relation to this point following the hearing. By said submission, the Complainant alleged that he was owed a total of 37 days of annual leave accumulated from 2022, 2023 and just prior to his termination in 2024. By response, the Respondent stated that the majority of the complaints raised were statute barred for the purposes of the impleaded Act. Notwithstanding the same, they submitted that the Complainant had in fact been over-paid for his annual leave entitlement and that no payment was due on termination. Regarding the final payment, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was absent from work for the relevant period and did not accrue any annual leave entitlement. In addition to the same, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not on certified sick leave and would not accrue annual leave in such circumstances.

The matter of accrual of annual leave has been the subject of much consideration in recent times. In the matter of Kreuziger v Land Berlin C-619/16 the CJEU held as follows,

‘…it cannot be inferred from the Court’s case-law mentioned in paragraphs 30 to 33 of the present judgment that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 should be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the circumstances underlying the worker’s failure to take paid annual leave, that worker should still be entitled to the right to annual leave referred to in Article 7(1), and, in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, to an allowance by way of substitution therefor, pursuant to Article 7(2).’

Later, at paragraph 42,

‘…the Court has in particular held that Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 does not in principle preclude national legislation which lays down conditions for the exercise of the right to paid annual leave expressly conferred by the directive, including even the loss of that right at the end of a leave year or of a carry-over period, provided, however, that the worker who has lost his right to paid annual leave has actually had the opportunity to exercise the right conferred on him by the directive.’

And at paragraph 52,

‘…the employer is in particular required, in view of the mandatory nature of the entitlement to paid annual leave and in order to guarantee the effectiveness of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, to ensure, specifically and transparently, that the worker is actually given the opportunity to take the paid annual leave to which he is entitled, by encouraging him, formally if need be, to do so, while informing him, accurately and in good time so as to ensure that that leave is still capable of procuring for the person concerned the rest and relaxation to which it is supposed to contribute, that, if he does not take it, it will be lost at the end of the reference period or authorised carry-over period, or upon termination of the employment relationship where the termination occurs during such a period.’

In the matter of Legal Aid Board v Theresa McAteer, DWT 2318, the Labour Court found annual leave accrued in circumstances whereby,

“…the Respondent has not discharged the burden of proof they bear, to show that the Complainant was informed accurately, and in good time, that if she did not take the annual leave within the reference period the annual leave would be lost.”

Regarding the accrual of annual leave whilst on sick leave, Section 19(1A) of the Act, as amended, provides that,

“For the purposes of this section, a day that an employee was absent from work due to illness shall, if the employee provided to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness, be deemed to be a day on which the employee was—

(a) at his or her place of work or at his or her employer’s disposal, and

(b) carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.”

In this regard, the Complainant provided evidence of certification of his sick leave from 29th September 2022 to 27th January 2023, a period of almost four months.

In this respect, it is apparent that the Complainant was on certified sick leave, and therefore accrued an annual leave entitlement from the dates outlined above. From 27th January 2023 to the date of the termination of his employment on 11th January 2024, the Complainant was absent on non-certified leave, and consequently annual leave would not accrue during this period. Regarding the accrual of the Complainant’s annual leave, no evidence was opened regarding the Respondent informing the Complainant that he could avail of outstanding any annual leave during his period of non-certified absence. In this respect, the Respondent cannot be said to have discharged their duties under Kreuziger, cited above.

In this respect, a conflict of evidence has arisen regarding the Complainant’s annual leave entitlement from 2022. However, having regard to the factual matrix presented by the parties, it is apparent that the Respondent has simply asserted that the Complainant availed of all annual leave during this period, without providing any documentary evidence to corroborate this position. In this respect, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant, and find by the end of 2022, including his certified sick leave, he had accrued and unused annual leave entitlement of 15 days. Thereafter, in 2023, his certification lasted for a further four weeks, creating a further entitlement of 1.5 days, resulting in a total outstanding entitlement of 16.5 days. In circumstances whereby the Complainant’s rate of pay was the equivalent of €123.08 per day, I find that the on the termination of the Complainant’s employment he had an accrued and untaken annual leave entitlement of €2,030.75. In circumstances whereby this sum was not discharged in accordance with Section 23 of the Act, I find that the complaint is well-founded, and the application succeeds.

CA-00062187-005 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

Regarding this complaint, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive payment for his public holiday entitlement for a number of years prior to his dismissal. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not attend work for a significant period of time prior to his resignation and, as a consequence of the same, they submitted that no entitlement accrued on the public holidays in question.

In this regard, the third schedule to the Organisation of Working Time Act provides that an employee is entitled to payment for public holidays for a period of 26 weeks or 52 for period of certified illness, dependent on whether that illness was work related or not. As set out above, the Complainant was on certified sick leave until 27th January 2023. Having regard to the cognisable period for the purposes of the present complaint, I find that the Complainant accrued no entitlement to a public holiday payment on the public holiday within same. In such circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00062187-006 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

By submission, the Complainant stated that he did not receive a copy of relevant statement of terms of employment at or near the commencement of his employment. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received all relevant documentation. In support of their position, the Respondent referenced a document entitled “terms and conditions of employment” duly signed by the Respondent on 13th August 2022. In circumstances whereby the Complainant worked for several years, and the vast majority of the tenure of his employment, without being provided with a written statement of terms, I find that his complaint is well-founded.

CA-00062187-007 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

In circumstances whereby this complaint is a duplicate of the matter listed above, I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

CA-00062187-008 – Complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts

I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, and consequently, this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00062187-001 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act